Best linux distro?

What do you want to do, just general desktop use? I recommend Ubuntu highly for that purpose. Try getting 6.06.1 32-bit. It's easy to install and the Automatic add-on makes it easy to install proprietary codecs, drivers, etc. All you really need is a willingness to learn and experiment. :)

Post here if you run into any issues.
 
I agree that Ubuntu is easiest to start with. It is easy to install software via the comprehensive respositories and the excellent 3rd party utility Automatix (for drivers, codecs, licensed apps etc.). Also there is a lot of community support & information on the Ubuntu website/forums.

I would recommend waiting for version 6.10 which is due out tomorrow. I've been running the release candidate and it is step up from 6.06. Also you might want to look at Kubuntu as the KDE desktop is more Windows like (compared with the Gnome one in Ubuntu).

A final thought is that the Unbuntu install disk is also a LiveCD so you can boot a fully functional system without installing anything on your disk. A great way to try the distro though it does run slower obviously.
 
Well there are a few that I use (in order of preference):

1. SuSE Linux Enterprise (not free) although there is an OpenSuSe version which is free

2. Kubuntu (Basically just Ubuntu bit with KDE rather than GNOME as the default window manager, I really don't like GNOME and think KDE is far superior if using a full desktop GUI)

3. Fedora/Mandriva - Tried both of the new versions and they both seem quite stable and nice to use.
 
I'm quite happy with Ubuntu too. I'm running in fluxbox as I found gnome too slow for my 1.33Ghz Athlon. I'm still trying to get used to how it all works, but it's pretty easy compared with other distros I've tried over the years.
 
I have just gone back to using Ubuntu 6.10 RC on my laptop (Dell XPS Gen 2 :cool: ) and I must say it gets better and better with each release. The only configuration I have to do was use synaptic manager for codecs and glx support. Took less than 10 minutes from a blank hard disk to a fully functioning system with full multimedia support. Superb.
 
I would say Ubuntu is the best for a beginner. I run archlinux which is ideal for what I use it for though. I can highly recommend it if you like a more tuned distro optimized for 686, which does not install the kitchen sink by default :p . Takes some time to configure it to how you like it though.
 
Is it easy to transfer Linux install from one hard drive to another? ATM I've switched back to MC, but I do have a 20GB hard drive, so I'll Linux install onto that. Eventually I should get it fully working and suitable replacement for MC. I would like to copy Linux from the 20GB to the 250GB.
 
Una said:
I would say Ubuntu is the best for a beginner. I run archlinux which is ideal for what I use it for though. I can highly recommend it if you like a more tuned distro optimized for 686, which does not install the kitchen sink by default :p . Takes some time to configure it to how you like it though.
Click to expand...
How does Arch compare to Gentoo?
 
Dj_Jestar said:
How does Arch compare to Gentoo?
Click to expand...

Well its pretty lightweight at the moment. There are not as many packages available as other distro's and there is a smaller number of developers working on it. Speed wise it feels similar to gentoo, but without the compile times (binary packages) :p .
The main programs most people use are in the respositories but I have had to build a few obscure ones from source. Its very much a keep it clean and simple, and do it your self distro.

Thread on the pros/cons here:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?t=26271
 
Last edited:
Sounds like unbuntu then. :) Can you encrypt the linux partition with aes so you need a password to start up the os? What sort of security features does linux have compared to windows, and whats the system performance like?
 
Energize said:
Sounds like unbuntu then. :) Can you encrypt the linux partition with aes so you need a password to start up the os? What sort of security features does linux have compared to windows, and whats the system performance like?
Click to expand...

You can use an AES encrypted loopback filesystem if you wish. You always have a password to log into linux, and a password for root user. If you wish for specially hardened kernel look into SELinux/Grsec kernels. What do you mean by system performance? Obviously depends on lots of things, no way to answer that.
 
What are the startup times compared to windows and is there usually any difference in speed between similar programs in linux and windows, like games, video encoding apps etc? And what is compatibility like compared to windows?
 
Last edited:
Say 30mins-1hour~ install times ish depends on the distribution. As for video encoding apps it depends on what program you are using to encode (how optimized the algorithms are), current load on the box etc... Roughly I would say pretty similar times to windows though.
There is a huge range of software available for linux, for example check http://freshmeat.net/
 
Last edited:
Thanks. Should I use the 32 or 64 bit version? Is there no real difference other than support for 64 bit apps or is there problems with the 64 bit version like other os cough*vista*cough?
 
Not sure really, never tried 64bit versions my self. Its possible to do a 32bit chroot enviroment, and then just symlink your programs to your 64bit enviroment. I would think these days 64bit support is a lot better but don't know for sure (flash/w32codecs etc, were not compatible with 64bit in the past). Do some searching.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17642729

EDIT: By the way new version of Ubuntu (Edgy) is coming out in a few hours.
 
Last edited:
I'd go for 32-bit. OSS stuff is just fine with 64-bit but proprietary things like plugins, especially flash, are not as plentiful in the 64-bit Linux world.

Squiffy had a thread about this a while back and he found it insurmountable and ended up retreating to WMCE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom